The attacks on Donald Trump are getting crazier and crazier.
He is asked a hypothetical question about if abortion is outlawed, would the lawbreakers be punished? He said that there would have to be some sort of penalty for doing something illegal.
Isn't that the definition of illegal?
Some reporter goes after Trump in a crowded room, gets pulled away, and files criminal charges? I watched the video. It shows a couple of hundred people milling around, and none of them showed any indication that anything irregular went on.
I got some comments complaining that Trump does not understand or respect the law. A law professor wrote a whole book on The Obama Administration’s Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Trump is on the right side of all those issue, while the Democrats are wrong.
Breitbart has a long article on the alt-right, which has become a small faction of Trump supporters. Curiously, it does not mention the site claiming to be the world's most visited alt-right website.
9 comments:
I don't know if it matters much but Trump said that there should be some sort of "punishmnet" which may sound slightly harsher to some people.
Do you agree with Trump that women should be punished for being involved in an illegal act ? Do you agree with Trump that only the doctor should be punished and not the women ? You can't logically, agree with both. People aren't jumping on what Trump said because they don't believe that in general, lawbreakers shouldn't be punished, they're upset over women being punished for being involved with breaking this particular law, right ? Not punishing women would be selective prosecution or selective enforcement of a law. What Trump said about it the first time is perfectly logical it's also unpopular with the majority of voters on the left and right. Saying things that are unpopular has earned Trump a lot of support, but in this case, it's going to cost him and waffling out of this statement is going to cost him a lot, too. Will Trump retain his same appeal now that he's become a waffler ? Maybe with those who are committed to him but not with a lot of his potential supporters who he needs if he intends to win a general election.
Trump doesn't seem to have done the math. You can't alienate 50% of voters and win a general election. With this misstep, Trump has further alienated women and has become a waffler, all at the same time. What makes Trump popular with his core supporters is the same thing that is going to make him unable to gain the support of others that he needs to be victorious in the end. Trump doesn't seem to get that your most devoted supporters can still only vote once. Remaining popular with them doesn't earn you any more votes. He needs to broaden his base of support and he's not doing that, and if he did, he'd probabaly lose some of the support he has. It's a zero sum game for Trump.
He's also begun talking about abandoning his pledge and running as a third party candidate.
Another huge waffle. I guess that he's unconcerned about voters feeling betrayed by him for having made the pledge and talking about breaking it ? It certainly makes him appear untrustworthy. I realize that he's only done this after Cruz and Kasich have been hedging on their pledge. Cumulatively, all three are weakening their party.
As for a woman having her arm grabbed a little agressively, it'd be nothing and dismissed if it hadn't involved Trump's campaign, I figure. His statements about women and violence at his rallies have opened the door for this sort of overreaction to a trvial matter.
Trump can't win. The only real question is if he's going to ruin the Republicans chances at the White House, and Congess while he's going down in flames.
If something is going to be illegal, then we have to have punishments that are sufficient to deter the conduct. I agree with that.
Realistically, nothing Trump says or does is likely to have any effect on abortion law. It is obviously not a big interest of his, and he has no idea what laws might deter abortion.
Debating theoretical counterfactuals is not terribly useful.
Women are used to having white knight men rush to the defense of women, no matter how irresponsible the behavior. So women are used to men saying that abortion is murder, but women should not be punished for murdering their babies.
Politicians sometimes have to say illogical things to get elected. Trump is learning that.
Are you being serious when you say that you don't think that women should be punished for murdering their babies ? sorry, I can't tell.
If president Trump were to appoint and have confirmed, certain judges to the Supreme Court, then Trump could have a powerful effect on abortion law. Do you think that Trump can change, and change quickly enough, the way he responds to questions/attacks/gotcha's, in time ?, or is it already too late ? Personally, good or bad, I don't think he's got it in him to not just be himself and suddenly become the sort of politician that he must to win a general election. To win a general election, you've got to undo a lot of what you said throughout the primaries and Trump until just a few days ago had never once, walked back a statement. You can't keep doubling down on what you say in a general election and gain voters.
I stay away from the abortion issue. Abortion will be legal for the foreseeable future, and these counterfactual hypotheticals do not help much.
Yes, Trump could appoint anti-abortion justices. But the pro-abortion faction has at least a 5-3 majority, and probably 6-3 if Obama gets a nominee confirmed. Previous Republican presidents have been willing to appoint pro-abortion justices, and it is quite likely that many other issues are more important to Trump. Even if the anti-abortion justices somehow got a majority on the Supreme Court, and that majority becomes willing to reverse precedent, abortion would still be legal in most states.
I meant that women used to men saying that women should not be punished for murdering their babies. Ted Cruz just said something similar, for example.
Cruz, Kasich, and other Republicans are much more firmly pro-life (ie, anti-abortion) than Trump. Most of Trump's views have a lot of appeal to Reagan Democrats. I do not see him have problems appealing to moderates in the Nov. election.
Trump is down double digits in the polls vs. Clinton and this during a period of the campaign when polling has been 2/3 predictive since 1952. Polls indicate that Trump will capture about 7% more Dem. voters than Clinton will capture Trump voters. Trump doessn't stand a chance.
Those figures are from the same experts who have been confidently predicting that Trump has zero chance of getting the nomination. Why believe them now, when they are been so wrong so far?
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/31/11336884/donald-trump-polls-winning
No, they're not the same experts. I think that you're referring more to the pundits. These are the statistical facts going back to 1952. None of these experts has said anything about Trump ever having a zero chance, or anything like that. A one out of three chance isn't the end of the world for Trump either. A lot of things can change in his favor over the coming months. It just doesn't look good for him right now based on historical data.
I looked at the article, and I don't see where they have made any correct predictions in the past. If Trump is the nominee, the election could turn out a lot different from the past.
No, they've never made any incorrect predictions either. They are analyzing past elections and polls taken at various points in campaigns. Any election could turn out a lot different from tha past.
Post a Comment